Why won't the UFT fight for the ATRs? & other questions that ATRs should pose at the official UFT meetings

New York City is poised to do a multi-barrelled assault on teachers: ATRs are being put into the classroom at inappropriate time (mid-October) –holding some teaching positions as vacancies until then is wrong for the kids, as they will have to endure the rocky transition from one teacher to another, a little more than a month into the term. And ATRs are being placed without proper training in Danielson or the Common Core standards.

Secondly, Carmen Farina and Randy Asher (the new chief supervisor of ATRs) have openly declared that the city is aiming to drastically thin the herd, by possibly 50 percent. Sure, this is wrapped in language of "reducing" the pool; but ATRs have heard too many stories of able ATRs being harassed out of their positions. The "reduction" plan smells to the ATRs like a liquidation plan.

The buzz in the newspapers just seems too coincidental. Most of the city non-TV media outlets, including most of the daily newspapers, were running stories about problem teachers returning to the classroom. The one after another pacing of the stories suggests that the DOE might have ignited this with a press release of talking points. This is virtually designed to create a base of hostile parents resenting “those teachers teaching my child," which is sure to set up teachers for trouble in an already challenging assignment, being force placed in October.

The UFT totally failed the ATRs by letting this media smear campaign go on without an equally loud union campaign defending the ATRs. The union should have pointed out that the teachers in the pool that had faced charges (usually around one-fourth of the Absent Teacher Reserve pool) have been exonerated. The city’s placing “problem marks” on teachers is double jeopardy (a subsequent attempt to try and punish someone that has already been cleared of charges, something that is illegal in the United States to impose on the accused). Those ATRs that had been accused have been found as not deserving to be fired. The UFT needs to make the point that not all accusations against teachers are true and that the bar for getting teachers charged with something under Bloomberg was dropped really low. And, the UFT needs to acknowledge and publicize the fact that the majority of ATRs are from schools that had closed down or had lost numbers of teaching positions.

Randy Asher's own problematic history needs to be brought up. He was "managing" Brooklyn Tech High School while he was slow and inept to work on some creepy teachers that we were in need of punitive action. New York magazine reported his history in "Brooklyn Tech Student Sues City Over Creepy, Cross-dressing Teacher." Yet, the city cooperates with the principals union in making sure that truly problem administrators will always find a new job. So, instead of firing Asher or demoting him to an AP position or a classroom position, he is empowered with drastically "thinning the herd" of ATRs. This is very hypocritical for someone with such poor professional judgment in his prior DOE administration job.

In fact, now with Farina’s new get extremely tougher campaign the DOE is taking a very hostile tone by putting letters in files against teachers that have had bathroom challenges. This case involves the DOE actually penalizing a teacher that has bowel difficulties. It's bad enough having embarassing toilet "accidents;" but this penality is additionally humiliating. The bar has dropped even lower than the Bloomberg era.

Then, we have the issue of ATRs and supervision. How is it that ATRs are going to have double supervision (the UFT is cooperating with extension of the field supervisor pursuit of ATRs, even while they have been assigned for a half year or nearly a whole year to a regular assignment in a school). ATRs are going to be supervised by principals and by field supervisors. It is unfair in relation to regularly assigned teachers who do not have to essentially face two principals. And common sense will say that however the principal feels is how the Field Supervisor will treat the teacher. This is not neutral. The principal & Field Sup plan is a tag teaming and the UFT is expecting the ATRs to be gullible for falling for this.

The DOE and the UFT have had the side agreement in the works for assignment and supervision of ATRs settled for a few months now. Why did the union allow months to elapse before properly briefing us on the new changes? The union's very unprofessional procrastination on a very important task is irresponsible and is leaving ATRs vulnerable to a weak transition back to regular classroom assignments.

Here are just some of the other questions that ATRs should pose to the UFT's ATR liasions next week:

*Why did the union agree to these conditions of working under Danielson, Advance and Common Core, when we were often denied the professional development on these topics? To boot, we were often assigned to cover teachers that were getting training in these skill areas.

*When is the union or the DOE going to hold training sessions --on paid time-- on learning all the different evaluation related terms, such as MOSLs, baseline assessments; and preliminary evaluation interviews with principals? The UFT is setting us up to failure if it fails to train us on these very essential questions.

*Why doesn’t UFT stand up for ATRs when they are getting smeared in the media? The DOE talking point is "unwanted" teachers; yet, until the UFT gave up seniority transfers with the 2005 contract, forced placement was the rule. Read here and here. In fact, until Bloomberg/Walcott began rotation in the 2011-2012 year, ATRs were placed or "forced" on principals. The UFT forgets institutional history and allows the DOE and the media to frame the narrative. The UFT's reticence helps keep alive the DOE's and the media's myth that we can't get hired if we try.

*When will the UFT step up to bat on our getting seniority for job openings? The city hires new teachers when experienced ATRs are available.

*Why won't the UFT give us straight answers about how many ATR pool members get truly hired or picked up by schools? They dodge and refer to ATRs as being assigned. They always promote sending our resume around or shining in our performance. But ATRs know many of their own kind and no of hardly any that ever get picked up.

*Why is the UFT always holding these "informational meetings" at 4:00 on days when we're required to stay at schools until some time between 3:35 or 3:50? (And why was one almost held right before a major religious holiday?)

*The city is openly saying that Asher’s task is to thin the herd. Why isn’t the union challenging this?

*Why is the union still tolerating no guarantee of equal bathroom access and elevator key access as is given to any other staff in the schools?

*When will the union fight for ending the fair funding formula?

It is unacceptable that the UFT repeats the same myth as the city, that the only reason why principals won’t hire ATRs is because they are not fresh enough. The truth is that it’s the ATRs’ salaries that keeps principals from considering ATRs, and plenty of principals will openly admit it. The Chaz blogger has laid out some very good proposals for ensuring principals will follow requirements to truly hire us.  Of course, the essential change is that the UFT must return to funding for the whole school on the teacher unit principal. See this quick, clear explanation of teacher units that Bloomberg/Klein ended. The 2007 creation of the fair student funding is a huge incentive to hire the cheaper teachers and avoid experienced teachers. As such, it is an attack on seniority.

The Bronx and Staten Island UFT informational meetings for ATRs have happened. Here are the remaining meetings, all held from 4:00 to 6:00 pm at UFT boro offices: 

Manhattan, 52 Broadway

Tuesday, Oct. 10

Queens, 97-77 Queens Blvd.
Tuesday, Oct. 10

Brooklyn, 335 Adams St.
Wednesday, Oct. 11

Don't get a heart attack - Chalkbeat published a decent article on ATRs

The local NYC media has actually published an article on ATRs that is sympathetic, not a hatchet job.

Christina Veiga at Chalkbeat did a professional job in her article, '‘They talk about you like you’re furniture.’ Three teachers on what it’s like to be in the Absent Teacher Reserve.'

She let ATRs speak, without maligning them. We just need to spread the word that Bill De Blasio is no more compassionate towards we ATRs than Mike Bloomberg was. De Blasio's field supervisors are unfairly judging teachers in fly-by observations.

And the UFT on the issue of this fall's coming placements? It makes behind closed door deals with the city DOE on ATRs' fates, without the participation of real ATRs; and it has yet to allow the election of any representatives of ATRs' choosing.

DeBlasio administration elevates DOE admin to cull the ATR or what?

The Daily News yesterday posted the news that Randy Asher, previously the principal at Brooklyn Technical High School, where his son attended, will get a new $185,298 job with the mission of thinning the ATR herd. You can expect that with that $25,000 raise over his principalship he will have an incentive to make big changes for the ATRs.

Now, we have to call this for what it is: a De Blasio appointment. He has mayoral control. What he wants, happens. The News reported Schools Chancellor Carmen Farina as making the appointment, but we really know who chose this.

The Ben Chapman story is really bad reporting. It doesn't pursue exactly how the city will decide who to hire and who to not hire. Is this thinning the ATR herd to be a culling by dubious means, bogus charges or bogus observations? Interestingly A major problem is one of licensure. Many people in the pool have seen their licenses become irrelevant, as the DOE has slashed the positions of librarian, trades teacher, music teacher, languages other than English or Spanish, with the decision that no one is interested in music anymore or no one is employed as a cosmetologist or an electrician any more. Yet, the city blames the teacher for the fact that it has seemingly destroyed the positions for the far foreseeable future.

Then there are the people in the humanities fields. The DOE has an oversupply of English and social studies teachers. There will be many people in these positions who will not be able to find a job as easily as the math or science teachers.

The Daily News writer really naively uncritically bought the interpretation of the chancellor or her press agents. This article is little more than a press release. If Chapman did a more proper job he would have pursued the question of how the salary differentials are huge incentives to not permanently hire the high salary ATRs. He should have recognized the issue of Fair Student Funding (see here at the Chaz blog for instance), which means that teachers are not funded as units as they were before 2007, but by the school out of a restricted budget. Therefore, the principals are disinclined to hire veteran teachers such as ATRs. The present rotational farce could be eliminated by placing teachers, as was done until fall, 2011. So, we see an example of how De Blasio is a continuation of Mike Bloomberg and actually worse than the first nine years of Bloomberg.

We do not know the devil in the details. Will the DOE-UFT tell teachers to find a position in five, six, ten or twelve months, as happens in Chicago or Washington --or else lose their position?
Why has no one ever compared the New York City teacher excessing situation, in contrast to the practices in other cities? Is it that the truth would be embarassing --that experience, seniority, is a help, not a hindrance, in retaining a position. See the numerous descriptions at the site of the National Council of Teacher Quality (NCTQ), most recently in 2013, at "Tr3 Trends: Teacher Excessing and Placement."
And where is the union in all this? Why didn't Chapman get any quote from anyone in the union or in the union's opposition caucus, MORE?

How will the union respond to this? The changes appear to be circumventing the DOE-UFT contract and any speedy terminations will circumvent civil service protections. 

This is probably just a PR move destined to serve the mayor and the union. Bill De Blasio can claim that he's helping the unfortunate ATRs and getting rid of the "unfit" ones. And Mike Mulgrew can claim victory of saving ATRs' jobs. The union will likely fail to challenge any of this, as it seeks to maintain cordial relations with the administrators' union, and as it seeks to maintain a chummy, uncritical relationship with the administration of mayor de Blasio.

Six basic questions that neither Farina nor Mulgrew have had the sense to address about the coming closures of 3 Brooklyn schools

Now that three (3) "troubled schools" in Brooklyn will be closing next year for "under performance and under enrollment", why hasn't anyone put this complex question to

FARINA and MULGREW...

1) Where do these teachers go when they are excessed??

2)  If they will be placed, how can they be placed when there are over 

     1,500 ATRs still waiting for placement?

3)  If these teachers are leaving the "closing" schools for other placements in

     "vacancies", will ATRs be placed in that "coverage" (provisional positions)

      when the school officially closes?

4)   How can the ATR pool go down when the DOE/UFT is creating this cycle?

5)   During an election year, will anyone address this "dark secret"?

6)   Who will acquire the available space when the schools are closed - 

      charter or the other public school?

If these questions are already answered, and the newspapers haven't put 2+2 together for the QUANDARY that will arise in 2016-17, then this dilemma is not addressed in some plausible way!!

Keep in mind, the next salary increase happens in MAY 2016 and many of our ATRs are reaching salary levels that are going beyond the compensatory levels within school budgets. (Despite Principals being told, it's not coming from their budgets unless over the allotted "average teacher salary in the bldg) This will definitely put a major strain upon hiring any ATRs for 2016-17 budget levels. For example, those teacher reaching 15 yrs are now prime targets for being "over budget and over age" and the most senior teacher in some schools will be 13yrs, if that!!  Hence, where do these teachers start to find positions especially when majority of positions are not on the DOE website or advertised as expected.

UFT, cut the fog: What is happening with the ATRs in the fall? And the ATR path to cutting class sizes

A pair of sentiments on the ATR crisis, maybe related:

The DOE/UFT needs to cut the fog: what is happening to ACRs/ATRs and the other rotated, excessed staff in the New York City schools this fall? [Given the aloofness from their constituents, maybe we should refer to the DOE and the UFT in the same breath, DOUFT.] There are different rumors: the DOE plans to get rid of the ATRs next year; the DOE plans to place all the ATRs next year. Just what does Farina plan on doing with us? And is the UFT advocating for us at all, or is the UFT taking a "whatever" approach?

(Remember to sign the petition for ATR chapter representation in the UFT.)
And one rotating teacher forwarded this item, on overcrowded classes, from the NYC Public School Parents newsletter. This would of course resolve the eternal large class size crisis that has plagued the city schools for years. The ATR did urge all ACRs/ATRs to call and email their city councilor, and report the abuse of ATRs. Find your city councilor here.

Urgent! Please call your Council Member today about need to address school overcrowding

As you know, NYC public schools are badly overcrowded and becoming more so every day. The city's capital plan for schools is underfunded by DOE's own admission, and if not expanded will likely lead to even worse overcrowding. The need for more schools is especially true as the Mayor is rapidly expanding preK and has a plan to encourage the building of 160,000 market rate housing units and 200,000 affordable units, which will further accelerate enrollment growth.

To address this crisis, Public Advocate Letitia James has written a letter to the Chancellor and the Mayor, urging them to double the school seats in the capital plan and to appoint a Commission to improve the efficiency of school planning and siting. Class Size Matters and many CEC leaders have signed onto this letter, as well as Daniel Dromm, Chair of the NYC Council Education Committee and Michael Mulgrew, UFT President. The letter is posted here. Here is a fact sheet about this issue. Since that letter was sent yesterday, four more Council Members have signed on: CMs Barron, Gentile, Johnson and King.

If your Council Members are not listed above, please call them TODAY, and ask them if they will sign onto the letter from the Public Advocate and Class Size Matters, urging the Mayor and Chancellor to alleviate the school overcrowding crisis by expanding the capital plan. You can easily find their phone numbers by entering your address here. If the city fails to expand the plan, your children and thousands of others are likely to suffer even worse overcrowding and larger class sizes in the future.

And please, whatever message you hear back, whether positive or negative, let me know by responding to this message. The Council will vote on the capital plan by the end of this month, so this is an urgent issue.

Thanks as ever for your support!

060215 - PA Ltr to Chancellor Farina Re Capital Plan (3)

On the other hand, placement of ACRs and ATRs will in many places accomplish the elimination of ACRs/ATRs from the school system. In schools such as the ones that Chaz cited in Queens these are places where careers are terminated.

An ATR's letter to Farina makes clear the inaneness of the ATR observation system

An ATR's letter explains the "Twilight Zone" farce that the NYC DOE's rotation system is; just consider also how ridiculous the ATR observation system is under these same circumstances.

March 8, 2014

Dear Chancellor Farina:

Picture this if you will: you are scheduled for elbow surgery with the renowned surgeon Dr. Robert J. Meislin at NYU Langone Medical Center. Dr. Meislin is scheduled to perform an ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction, otherwise known as a Tommy John surgery, on your right elbow. Without this surgery, you may never be able to hold a pen again. But you’re not worried, Dr. Meislin is very experienced.

The morning of the surgery, as you are being wheeled into the operating room, you find out that Dr. Meislin was in an accident and will not be operating but they have found a replacement. A fine proctologist will be performing your surgery but that’s alright, they’re both medical doctors.

Was that you we heard screaming as you hailed a cab, still wearing your hospital gown, on the corner of 1st Avenue and 30th: “That OR scheduling nurse doesn’t know her ASS from her ELBOW”?

Sounds farfetched? Well, to parents in the NYC school system, that’s exactly what is happening. Teachers who have been trained in one subject or at one level are being sent into schools and being told to teach subjects (and then being observed doing so) in things they have no idea how to do. They have no materials, no lesson plans, no IEPs, no training. High school math teachers teaching pre-k; business teachers teaching science; bilingual classes being taught by teachers who don’t speak Spanish. You get the idea. Is this in the students’ best interests, the teachers’, the city’s? If your child was in this class, what would you think?

Cynthia Shub, ATR

Observations in sub assignments, is this how Farina's DOE will "eliminate the ATR pool?"

ATRs are roundly frustrated with the very notion of teachers being plopped into classrooms they don't know and then experiencing high-stakes evaluations on their performance with students they do not know, in schools they do not know, with bell schedules they do not know. There is no known precedent, prior to this year, for teachers having their careers put at stake over high stakes evaluations with students they just met. The folly of ATRs rotating and getting observations in sub assignments only came about two years into Bloomberg's third term. Yet, chancellor Farina is definitely extending this questionably valid process.

The UFT has failed to speak up on this. Michael Mulgrew was directly asked about this during his appearance on WNYC on February 17th, but he didn't address the issue. The union's statements about teachers needing to get new wardrobes and get more professional development play into the media's and the DOE's line that ATRs are incapable. In October, 2011, the union publicized its agreement with a "pilot program" for rotating supervisors to evaluate rotating teachers in a handful of districts. This followed on other key events in the history of the ATR condition. 2005, the UFT sold a contract eliminating the seniority transfer. 2007, the union agreed to Fair Student Funding, opening the floodgates for principals rejecting ATRs for new teachers. June, 2011, the union's executive board agreed to rotation.

The union got shnookered with the line that this was a pilot program tried in a few select districts. With pilot programs the results of the pilot are shared. Where was the analysis of that first year? And did you notice? About observations in the first year, 2011-2012, Amy Arundell said that the only teachers getting U's at the end of the year got them for attendance issues. For the second year, 2012-2013, Arundell took great effort at the yearly boro level UFT ATR meetings to snuff out any discontent over the prospect of career-threatening U ratings. In the October, 2013 meetings Arundell called people that raised the issue “fear-mongerers”. By the end of this January, the pattern became clear: Roving ATR Field Supervisors are giving out Unsatisfactories at an unprecedented rate. One Queens supervisor is giving them out at a 50 percent rate. It is clear that they are at war with us. They couldn't get rid of LIFO. Note that the LIFO battle happened in mid-2011 and that by the fall the city meted out this rotate and observe program. They're pursuing the same tenure-breaking objective by this contract-breaking and all common sense-defying strategy. No education expert has stepped forward and has defended this approach of dropping teachers into alien situations and placed make or break expectations on them.

There are multiple contract violations in the course of these observations. The 2007-2009 Contract still applies to excessed teachers in rotation. Yet, some Field Supervisors are refusing to accept written requests for pre- or post-observation conferences. There are multiple reports of roving supervisors giving only part of a period to a conference. Thus, Articles 7A and 8J of the Contract are being violated. Common Core was launched after the 2007–2009 Contract was signed, yet in clear violation of the Contract, supervisors are mandating that lessons conform to the Common Core, a program so controversial that many in the legislature are having serious doubts. Some supervisors are going a step further and are mandating that teachers follow Danielson, yet this legally only applies to teachers in regular classroom assignments. In general, these observations appear to be arbitrary and capricious, violating the professionalism of educators. Because of the arbitrary and capricious issues these observations are in violation of Article 20 of the Contract.

And the uniform testimony is that supervisors are forcing ATRs to sign statements that they have received documents and that they have discussed certain questions such as “How many days are left in your CAR?” And what's up with pressing us into a discussion of the Family Medical Leave Act? Are they trying to get us to spend less time in the classroom?

Here is an excellent public letter summing up the issues at stake in the evaluations, followed by some ATR testimonies of the outrages of the ATR evaluation scam.

….Coming soon: ATRs turn the tables and write their quality reviews of the schools.

Dear Chancellor Farina,

    I thought I would inform you, in case you were not aware, about the ATR roving supervisors.

    The supervisors contact the ATRs and arrange to have them teach lessons in their subject areas in schools they happen to be in that week. The ATR, whose job it is to cover classes and implement the absent teacher's lesson plan, is thrust into a teaching environment, where he/she does not know the students or the school environment. In many cases they are asked to teach generic lessons and do not have access to classroom teaching resources. In essence, they are set up to fail, and at the mercy of the supervisors, who hold them and the lesson to unattainable standards.

    I think you can see how this practice certainly abuses the professionalism of teachers. They are being observed in an arbitrary and capricious manner without benefit of having a regular program or classes. They can not demonstrate effective classroom management, tone, differentiation of instruction or teaching rigor, in a one period lesson with students they do not know.

    ATRs should not be forced to conduct these high stakes lessons under these conditions. If the DOE wants to observe lessons, these teachers should be permanently placed in schools and in proper teaching environments.

   ATRs are valuable resources that are being wasted doing substitute work at high cost to city taxpayers. The DOE has hired 5000 teachers this school year while there are some 1200 ATRs. In addition, there is an ATR unit with several employees under Nicki Stanley at DOE central that adds to the cost, along with the expense of roving supervisors.

   I hope you will take a close look in to this matter and dismantle this ATR unit and roving supervisors, placing ATRs back into permanent classroom settings.

Sincerely,
James Calantjis
Educator

Another:

I heard from one ATR that his supervisor came in and had him do a lesson (math) the same day using the regular teacher's lesson plan. She came back a couple of weeks later and gave the observation a satisfactory. He does not even know her name and she did not give him a copy of the observation.

Another:

It has come to my attention that the "observations" we are all undergoing are not actually valid and that the various networks are creating work in order to stay relevant.  Also, I was told all network contracts expire in July of this year and many are scrambling to find jobs - as APs,etc.  I don't know how much is actually true, but the following does make sense:

Our observations cannot be valid in that we are not privy to the academic backgrounds of the students we are "teaching" during the observation. Thus, we - AND our "supervisor" - are not aware of any IEP or learning accommodations and cannot accurately evaluate our lesson. For that matter, they cannot judge by previous grades or exams if we are teaching the "appropriate" materials. If we receive a U, we are then required to receive specific feedback and that is impossible for the same reasons. It also negates the observation process' requirement of being observed again to see if we have made the appropriate changes as specified and discussed with our AP.  These supervisors have 40-50 ATRs they are responsible for. Are they all researching the students they are observing us teach? Are they going to follow up with us? Arrange for us to see the same class and students to monitor our progress? Are they all prepared to professionally develop us if they find us lacking?  Really?

According to the person I spoke to this is all BS and busy work. Nothing so sinister as they are targeting us, or looking to find information out from us. It was also pointed out that if such were the case, we would all be undergoing the SAME procedures and that is clearly not the case. Some supervisors are requiring incorporation of common core, others are not. Some are making arrangements with the school beforehand so we can "feel comfortable" in the classroom, others are not. Some are staying the whole period, others or not. The very lack of consistency seems to point to the non-validity of these observations.

Again, don't know that it's true, but it does seem to make sense.  What exactly are the rules for ATRs and observations?  I don't think there are any.  Is there anything specific about us in the contract? Any provisions or guidelines or ANYTHING? If there isn't, then how can we be reprimanded - or evaluated - on something that doesn't exist and does not have any parameters for evaluation?

Another:

My friend got a U.
Then my friend was recommended for a vacancy by the same field supervisor.

Another:

I don't have an observation story (yet), being observed as a sub flies in the face of common sense. I don't know from what period to the next what I will be teaching, 90 percent of the time there are no lesson plans left, often I have been put in bilingual classes (I don't speak Spanish), I am been given hall and lunchroom duty. Are we supposed to carry around lessons for four subjects in nine different grades? As you know, the culture and expectations vary widely from school to school so it is very hard to prepare. I don't think ATRs are treated and differently than subs. The administration doesn't care what goes on as long as it's quiet and no one gets hurt. Pretty sad.

Another:

It appears that the roving supervisors are pouncing on teachers that are newly excessed. They observe them within the first few months of being excessed. I met a ten year veteran from a eastern Queens HS, a science teacher from a ten year plus veteran from western Queens HS and a fifteen year+ veteran from a southeast Queens HS, who had this experience. 

Another:

I was excessed in June this is my 10th year but only my first as an ATR and a field supervisor met with me over a month ago for a pre-observation conference. I have yet to receive a date or time when this observation will take place.

Another:

I was called by a science teacher last school year. The woman was given a class coverage for a bilingual class in math, neither of which were in her license area. She did the best she could do under the circumstances, in particular the language. The kids spoke only Spanish. 

So, she did the best she could do with gestures.

The Field Supervisor saw her after class. He told her that she had a "U" rating because she "didn't do her job." She asked him what her job was. His response was " teach the lesson as if you were the teacher." She was outraged. As anyone under these conditions would be. 

She told explained to him that she was at a huge disadvantage, as she was not bilingual and not a math teacher.

He walked back the rating to a "S". He said to her it's a very low "S".

I told her, after she told me the story, that an "S" was an "S". It didn't matter what he said. I told her that once she got the observation, she should sign it and fax it back immediately. She did, and she moved on.

The audacity of these horrible Field Supervisors just amazes me.

Fraternally yours, 

Clare D. Cortez, Teacher in the Traveling Pool since 2011